This does not change the fact that there were advocates of the war who had intentions other than those of the Bush Administration.

...simply does not hold water. Even I, a non-elite person without an alphabet soup after my name, knew before the 2000 election that GWB could not be counted on to lead a competent administration, given his own personal history of failure and having to be bailed out of every single scrape by his father's friends. A single book by Molly Ivins would have been enough on its own, but there was even more evidence available for those willing to look.

Apparently, all of that extra education and the advantages given to those in a position to influence policy (including TF) has resulted in a bubble of far vaster proportions than even I suspected. "...intentions other than those of the Bush Administration?" Please!?!

It was NOT sufficient to assume that if GWB surrounded himself with so-called adults then the results would have been any different just because he was now acting out from the WH. His father had already tried for years to surround him with adults just to keep him from getting into increasingly worse trouble. With mixed results.

Everyone else... Even if DHK 220 is not Friedman's alter ego, there is certainly some kind of vested interest in their continued relationship.

Kudos to Glenn for having created a blog (and a following) that even the "influencers" now feel obligated to read. And sometimes respond to...

...is entirely appropriate. Too much "civility" on our part often allows the other side, not only to have their own way in writing the narrative as they see fit, but to think that they are perfectly entitled to do so.

It's not as if idiot (a perfectly good noun) were a swear or curse word, after all.

And I say this as one who is usually on the side of more civility, not less. Go figure...

I have and it's peculiar. Very few results, but there is one from an article in a journal of Chromatography re: the reactions of some substances found in an "intoxicating pepper."

I'll bet there is someone here who might be able to make some sense of it.

An aside... I noticed that he did not respond to my main point (re: those with better intentions than in Bush's White House)... that for anyone looking for pertinent information about GWB, his history was available (even prior to 2000), and should have been taken into account. Especially by those trying to steer us into an ill-advised war. Yet, he accuses me of participating in group think in these comments. Perhaps because I am merely another "anon," even though mine is a specific ID.

that I can always, without fail, rely, on a 'stream of revelatory' spontaneous, instantaneous, super-natural, and insightful...a simple consciousness, that will, and does come to assist me/us? gads, And always emerges from within us...[?...] as insight and reflective guidance...[?].... I hope so...

At least from my perspective. It's happened so many times that you seem to channel something going on with me or with someone else on the thread... or that you seem to know details that haven't been posted. Until you post them.

"Gads," indeed.

After reading all of your comments, and then clicking on the link, and then on the book... my cult antenna was activated.

It's late, though. I'll look again tomorrow.

I'd love to list and thank everyone here, but I'm sure I'd leave someone out and that would be tragic.

Yesterday was too busy (shopping/errands) to comment, and today there's more cooking, travel, etc. Who knows if there will be any time for the internets today...

but I wish YOU ALL a wonderful Thanksgiving!

And, a hearty welcome from one more regular to Stuart. This really is one of the best discussion threads on the net. And the discussion on this post, in particular, demonstrates that.

* * *

bystander, thanks for that link to the Charles Pierce piece. I really needed a good laugh.

You never disappoint... ;~)

for the links: to the Real News and to the FDL post by looseheadprop on Mario Cuomo's speech. I, too, have been wondering what would happen here if lawyers were to take to the streets. For our civil liberties, and for the Constitution.

Even though Rudd seemed likely to win anyway, it's hard not to wonder how much effect Bush' visit had a month or two before Howard finally declared a date for the election. Perhaps he bears some responsibility for the "landslide." There was so much political theater during that visit.

I happened to be there for about a week last month, during the time that Howard announced the election date, and it seemed pretty clear even then that he was on his way out.

Also, fwiw, whenever I'm overseas, I always feel obligated to apologize (for Bush, for Iraq, etc., etc.) whenever the opportunity presents itself, including in Australia, where, however, none of the residents seemed to think it was really necessary.

It is a word that's often used in military contexts...

dough·ty (dou'tē) pronunciation

adj., -ti·er, -ti·est.

Marked by stouthearted courage; brave.

[Middle English, from Old English dohtig.]

doughtily dough'ti·ly adv.

doughtiness dough'ti·ness n.

http://www.answers.com/topic/doughty

But its meaning is pretty much the opposite of doughy.

began about the same time that there were many vigorous complaints about trolls, and one was banned from UT, but kept posting anyway, usually on posts a day or two old... i.e., less visible.

IOW, in order not to ban one person from posting on Salon, they have instead made it impossible for many others to communicate freely. Nice paradox, hmmm?

The previous UT post was the second time that a comment thread was closed when there was no where else for UT commenters to gather.

Perhaps we need a backup plan for the future? The "old" UT?